AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-01-26, 16:19   Link #2121
Kokukirin
Shadow of Effilisi
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vena View Post
Thank god! The space shuttles were useless, expensive contract embezzlements/corruption that couldn't have died any sooner. The entire "pitch" to them was that they'd be "safer" and "cheaper", the former is arguable but the latter is a joke of epic proportions. The space shuttle's upkeep cost more than multiple Apollo Rockets + Mission and then there was the initial building investment that also heavily out matched the price of the Apollo Rockets. The entire reason for introducing it was under a false pretense.

The sooner they scrap the entire flawed idea and build real spaceships the better. Heck, at this point, bigger Apollo Rockets would be better. While they're at it they need to trash that idiotic space station and rebuild the original "block" station. The current station is a piece of garbage that is just as smelly of corruption as the shuttle. The former station was designed by block-architecture and could be expanded effectively indefinitely (like legos) whereas the current one is tight and awkwardly shaped cylinders that do not lend to expansion or much of anything for that matter.

Ooh, while we're on the subject: Linear accelerator in the desert instead of that idiotic launch pad in Cape Canaveral. Shuttles should only be using fuel when they are well beyond the atmosphere where they cannot be conveniently catapulted to maximum speeds without any sort of burden on the shuttle itself to carry more fuel just so that it can carry said extra fuel and itself into space.

Damn, NASA just annoys me with all its bullshit, red tape, and leading scientists who apparently have utterly no grasp of common economic principle.
The shuttle cost problem is well known. But I am much more skeptical about your other complains.

IANARS, but I suspect space stations are cylindrical because you get a larger internal volume with same amount of materials, which is a critical advantage because the mass matters when launching stuff to space. I am also not convinced that the ISS needs the ability to continually expand.

Relocating launchpad from one place to another is very expensive. Many of the hardware are huge and heavy. The software needs to be changed, which is also costly and increases risk of problems. It's also not obvious to me why launching in the desert is far superior to Florida coast, other than the reduced risk of storms and lightning strikes.

I also find it hard to believe that NASA has not figured out the right propelling sequence for shuttles, especially if a better method is as obvious as you suggested.
Kokukirin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 16:56   Link #2122
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
I was under the impression that a Linear accelerator was impractical for that use due to the Earth's gravity and atmospheric drag.

But then even the hard science authors can't agree on how to do things...why would you expect a Congressman or President to agree when they have a hundred different options presented to them, a budget to stay within, and congressional districts to appease.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 17:35   Link #2123
monsta666
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
This is a really insightful comment, and I think it's absolutely right. I thought it was a bit weird for Newt Gingrich to come up with the moon idea, but your remark made me realize why: the Republicans have never been big on spending for science. Unless Mr. Gingrich intends to make NASA a part of the military, there's no way that he would be able to get it funded. Even if he could... aren't we currently trying to balance the budget?
I can't see the US making any serious attempt in balancing the budget. If the US wanted to balance their budget then they would need to consider making spending cuts AND increasing taxation. I don't think they are doing any of that, at least not on a meaningful level.

There is no way the budget could be closed by spending cuts alone nor is it possible to do it through tax rises. A combination of the two is required and probably something around the ratio of 75%/25% with 75% of the budget balancing coming through spending cuts. If the US is really serious about balancing the books then they need to address military spending and the ballooning Medicare/Medicaid bills. Those are the main areas where cuts must be implemented if people wish to balance the budget. As for tax rises, exemptions/loopholes must be cut as much as possible. Tax rises across the board must be implemented and particular emphasis should be placed in taxing the elites the most since this group have been largely responsible for the recession.

I guess the hope was to apply Keynesian economic policies which would enable the economy to grow fast enough that governmental revenues will increase through economic growth and this growth in revenue would plug the budget deficit. Problem is the stimulus measures have not really worked and no real attempt has been made with these stimulus packages to fuel economic growth (there has been no new deal policies as done in the great depression). Instead most stimulus packages have consisted of bailouts or quantitative easing which has increased the balance sheet and limited the amount of damaged inflicted by the credit crisis from the real estate bubble bursting. In other words the stimulus package was only successful in the sense of avoiding a depression but has done little to actually stimulate rapid growth in the economy itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Want to know how we can attain energy security? Provide funding to alternative energy sources so that we can be in charge of our own energy, and consume less. Don't like Toyota Priuses because they're made by a Japanese company? Then keep your eye on Tesla Motors, an American company that makes 100% electric cars. And remember: nuclear power is currently the safest, cleanest option that we have at the moment, so don't oppose that, either.

Cede energy security to China... hah!
What you say is certainly true, and I am actually an advocate of nuclear energy. Whilst renewable sources such as wind/PV are great they are intermittent and thus not good for baseload energy. Nuclear energy once up and running is well suited to baseload energy. Having a nuclear power with a smart grid that can handle the fluctuating power from renewable energy sources and transfer electricity when needed would be the ideal long-term solution to dealing with energy security. Although it must be noted that the amount of energy the US imports in crude oil which is about 10 million barrels per day is the equivalent in BTUs to about 750 or so nuclear power plants. Considering the US has about 104 nuclear plants in service that is a big gap and investment to bridge.

With the amount of nuclear construction required one needs to seriously consider the amount of uranium on the planet. Building massive amounts of nuclear energy is not a viable solution if breeder or thorium reactors are not considered. I am sure America, if they put their minds to it could overcome these issues but you got to cut military spending now and invest that money on energy security. Because when peak oil/gas/coal etc comes well you will have national security issues that would be way way bigger than what any terrorist could hope to achieve.

Energy efficiencies from more fuel efficient vehicles will also help but ultimately the way to go is public transport and having a living arrangement that is less centred around cars. That would drastically reduce energy consumption. However when it comes to energy efficiency one must be aware of the rebound effect and Jevon's paradox. Energy efficiencies alone are not a panacea and this is particularly true when one takes into account growing rates of consumption through increased incomes (which would come from economic growth) and population growth. A necessary condition for sustainability is to control the rate of consumption - and most controversial of all - the growth of populations. If either one is allowed to grow indefinitely you will not have a sustainable situation.

If it means anything I don't think China's energy policy will be so secure either. The Chinese are coal monsters and currently consume about 50% of the worlds coal. With annual growth rates of electrical consumption around 7% per year they will double their electricity in just 10 years. They are currently importing more and more coal every year (not good for energy independence). This is not sustainable policy particularly if China hits peak coal production in the coming years which is very possible. The current growth trajectory will not be sustained and that is before we consider the fact that all these coal plants require considerable amounts of water for cooling. The Chinese are already extracting water at above sustainable rates (aquifers in the country are dropping at rapid rates) if they add 100s of coal plants the situation regarding water security would only get worse. Indeed this issue of water security will become a big issue for China in the coming years especially if you consider their neighbours India are also suffering from water shortages and both countries depend on the same rivers and Himalayas for their sources of water.
monsta666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 17:58   Link #2124
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
A multi-lateral approach using nuclear, wind/sea/geotherm, solar, and natural gas would be a prudent policy rather than "drill baby drill" bullshit. And coal is a freaking disaster both for the regions that it is extracted from as well as the by-products. There is no such thing as "clean coal" when you look at the entire engineering cycle. Fracking is another technology that has red flags all over it... its not that it isn't *possible* to safely frack... but as long as short-term profit is the end goal rather than safety or long term societal impact, then no. "Oh darn, we wrecked the drinking water supply for 3 million people, guess we'll declare bankruptcy and reform under another name."
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 18:03   Link #2125
Vena
Carpe Diem
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ||At the edge of finality.||
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokukirin View Post
IANARS, but I suspect space stations are cylindrical because you get a larger internal volume with same amount of materials, which is a critical advantage because the mass matters when launching stuff to space. I am also not convinced that the ISS needs the ability to continually expand.
Having a modular ISS and one that can expand, gives you the ability to change/expand for a changing/growing program. It is strictly more advantageous if you plan on using your space program for anything more than a spectacle (or funnel to embezzle money). The materials issue, while valid, should have been a non-issue had they not torn down the original ISS for the current (which they will also eventually tear down because you really can't do anything more with what is currently there, its design is too limited); you already had a modular core built and even if the technology inside was dated it would have been cheaper to replace the internal functions than to tear it down, and you could have still employed the same concept as adding cylindrical, more volume-favorable designs to the outer sections of the core.

So, here's the ultimate question: Do you build a station with a core that favors expansion, or build the entire thing with volume-favorable shapes but that do not offer any strength towards future expansion. Yes, the former is harder to move per unit of material vs. the latter, but you have to consider the fact that the latter needs to be torn down if it is to be replaced by a better version while the former can continually be expanded with better functionality so long as the core is kept up-to-date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokukirin View Post
Relocating launchpad from one place to another is very expensive. Many of the hardware are huge and heavy. The software needs to be changed, which is also costly and increases risk of problems. It's also not obvious to me why launching in the desert is far superior to Florida coast, other than the reduced risk of storms and lightning strikes.

I also find it hard to believe that NASA has not figured out the right propelling sequence for shuttles, especially if a better method is as obvious as you suggested.
Cape Canaveral is a terrible place, and there's a good reason why all those "commercial" space travels are avoiding it like the plague. The atmosphere and weather are entirely too unpredictable, often times causing long delays and/or damages from the storms that roll in every single year. The money lost to delay has, by now, probably exceeded the cost that would have been required to build a new base of operations somewhere in Nevada. (And we talk about jobs? There's some jobs for people right there.)

The idea for the accelerator is not to reach escape velocities, but to minimize requirements of weight load from the fuel that the space craft would need to carry to get itself and said extra fuel into orbit. The drag of air will create issues if you try to push for too large of a speed over too short of a distance but if you build the accelerator long (we're talking very long here, highway long) and at a slight angle you can achieve very high speeds and decent clearance by the time the shuttle leaves the track. The biggest issue is keeping the track cool under the massive heat generated from the electromagnetism required to propel something the size of a shuttle (so I guess you could tie this to the atmosphere as well). As I said, the best idea at the moment is, sadly, the original Apollo Rockets.
__________________
Transcend Eternity
Vena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 19:12   Link #2126
Kokukirin
Shadow of Effilisi
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vena View Post
Having a modular ISS and one that can expand, gives you the ability to change/expand for a changing/growing program. It is strictly more advantageous if you plan on using your space program for anything more than a spectacle (or funnel to embezzle money). The materials issue, while valid, should have been a non-issue had they not torn down the original ISS for the current (which they will also eventually tear down because you really can't do anything more with what is currently there, its design is too limited); you already had a modular core built and even if the technology inside was dated it would have been cheaper to replace the internal functions than to tear it down, and you could have still employed the same concept as adding cylindrical, more volume-favorable designs to the outer sections of the core.

So, here's the ultimate question: Do you build a station with a core that favors expansion, or build the entire thing with volume-favorable shapes but that do not offer any strength towards future expansion. Yes, the former is harder to move per unit of material vs. the latter, but you have to consider the fact that the latter needs to be torn down if it is to be replaced by a better version while the former can continually be expanded with better functionality so long as the core is kept up-to-date.
ISS has a modular design that allows expansion, which has been done multiple times already. Having a cylindrical shape does not prohibit it from expanding. I really don't get your argument here.

Btw, which "original" space station are you referring to? The Russian Mir? Skylab?

Quote:
Cape Canaveral is a terrible place, and there's a good reason why all those "commercial" space travels are avoiding it like the plague. The atmosphere and weather are entirely too unpredictable, often times causing long delays and/or damages from the storms that roll in every single year. The money lost to delay has, by now, probably exceeded the cost that would have been required to build a new base of operations somewhere in Nevada. (And we talk about jobs? There's some jobs for people right there.)
It is also the site for Air Force's missile launchers and about as close to Equator as you can get in the US, making it a logical choice for space launches. Weather is not the only factor when picking a launching site.

The cost of moving facility is beyond my knowledge. But in any case, NASA does not have the funding to make such a move.
Kokukirin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 19:15   Link #2127
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by flying ^ View Post


omfg are you libs willing to cede North American energy security to.......... 800 pound gorilla named CHINA?!
I really felt the need to reply to this stupidity.

1. North American energy security? The oil gets pumped through the pipeline to the Gulf Coast, and shipped across the world. We do not get to keep it all to ourselves.

2. The amount of jobs added building the pipeline are overshadowed by the jobs remaining after the line is built. So while you will have added jobs, no matter how you spin it there really won't be that many.

3. The US won't own the pipeline.

4. The existing pipeline has already leaked numerous times.

5. No nation on the planet has energy security, because the era of fossil fuels is rapidly ending. You can deny it just like people deny climate change though.

6. Speaking of fossil fuels and climate change, have you actually seen the scale of the operation?



Those little dots of trucks? Here's what they look like "up close":



You can easily see the site from space:



This isn't just "energy". It's planetary destruction on a suicidal level. It's not strip mining, it's literally skinning the planet. We will never gain more energy from the oil than we spent getting it. That right there is a clear indicator that it is a waste of time. However in addition to that, the sheer amount of resources, precious resources, spent getting this crap out of the earth is staggering. The net energy loss, resource waste, and pollution should all be huge indicators that this is not worth it, but since the planet can't kick its addiction to burning dead plants and animals, this is what we get.

The whole issue of energy is honestly something for a specific thread on the topic, but please don't be deluded by political talking points revolving around junk like jobs and China.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 19:52   Link #2128
Vena
Carpe Diem
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ||At the edge of finality.||
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokukirin View Post
ISS has a modular design that allows expansion, which has been done multiple times already. Having a cylindrical shape does not prohibit it from expanding. I really don't get your argument here.

Btw, which "original" space station are you referring to? The Russian Mir? Skylab?
I'm speaking along the lines of Salyut and Mir, not that it matters as all of the space stations are of the same basic series starting from Salyut and Almaz, the only difference being the centralization of design between them. ISS is the most "spread" out design (it is larger after all) and while it has a "central core" its not quite the same concept as what was applied in the construction (and large scale) expansion of Mir. The modular nature of the Mir station allowed "chunk" or (as I was calling them) "blocks" to be rocketed/shipped up in completed segments and attached as needed. As far as I am aware the current ISS is done effectively piece by piece and in space, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. So while both can be expanded, I'd say the former was much more versatile given that it was more like adding together prebuilt legos than with the current set of shipping up a cart of legos and having it put together.

If I'm wrong, as my curiosity with NASA dried up about five years ago when they kept adding zeros to the end of their "best, biggest telescope ever" plan's costs, let me know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokukirin View Post
It is also the site for Air Force's missile launchers and about as close to Equator as you can get in the US, making it a logical choice for space launches. Weather is not the only factor when picking a launching site.

The cost of moving facility is beyond my knowledge. But in any case, NASA does not have the funding to make such a move.
The cost is probably astronomical compared to anything you or I are used to, but if our Senators are allowed to earmark bridges to nowhere, companies are allowed to build natural-disaster waiting to happen oil rigs/oil lines, I don't see why moving and building a new station (which you can partially fund from the private sector by promising the use of facilities) would have been impossible or unimaginable (aside from no one in politics caring about science). The equatorial position is great but having consistent weather is also great, there are plenty of trade offs in moving the space program to somewhere else.

But like I said, many of this new private "space flights" (they're just low orbit) favor the expanse of the desert over vertical launch pads. (Frankly, I am just not a fan of vertical launch pads.)
__________________
Transcend Eternity
Vena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 20:50   Link #2129
Zetsubo
著述遮断
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Oil and Gas are going to lobby and bribe to ensure government resistance to other ways of producing power.

Just like the music industries record shops are all but dead, because of iTunes, iPOD and the other MP3/Digital media devices and services, the current aged oil/gas industry is going to suffer a horrific fate if disruptive technology is allowed to flourish in a channel the fossil corps cant control.

They do not want to be napsterized, and iTuned out of the old way if milking money from the masses. Ironically, the Arabs don't want it either.

I remember Gundamn 00 (again) where "that part of the world" fell into complete chaos after the first few solar towers were built by the powerful nations.

The oil was no longer needed... and so the money flow stopped and people got crazy !

Anyway... Solar Furnace FTW !
Zetsubo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 20:51   Link #2130
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by monsta666 View Post
I can't see the US making any serious attempt in balancing the budget. If the US wanted to balance their budget then they would need to consider making spending cuts AND increasing taxation. I don't think they are doing any of that, at least not on a meaningful level.

There is no way the budget could be closed by spending cuts alone nor is it possible to do it through tax rises. A combination of the two is required and probably something around the ratio of 75%/25% with 75% of the budget balancing coming through spending cuts. If the US is really serious about balancing the books then they need to address military spending and the ballooning Medicare/Medicaid bills. Those are the main areas where cuts must be implemented if people wish to balance the budget. As for tax rises, exemptions/loopholes must be cut as much as possible. Tax rises across the board must be implemented and particular emphasis should be placed in taxing the elites the most since this group have been largely responsible for the recession.
The government is trying to raise taxes (well, the Democrats are) and cut spending (Democrats and Republicans), but the problem is that there's a deep ideological divide. To the Republicans, the military is practically sacred, while social services like Medicaid and Medicare cater to parasites. To Democrats, social services are critical to support society, and we're spending too much on the military. As with most things, the reality is that we're probably spending too much on both, and cuts to both should be made.

The problem is that ideological divide... ideally, both sides would compromise and both would accept cuts to the programs that they hold dear. It would be a sort of mutual sacrifice for the good of the country. Based on what I've seen, the Democrats haven't been perfect, but they've been willing to make those negotiated cuts. The Republicans, on the other hand, are totally unwilling to make a single concession. It is disgusting.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 21:54   Link #2131
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Well the United States does have another launch site, but it is used for military launches...since it is on Vandenburg Air Force Base. It was to be used for Shuttle Launches but they canelled that idea after Challenger exploded. It has been used for polar orbit launches for military and commercial space projects.


The ISS is the combination of something like four or five space station projects from multiple countries. It uses the basis of a Mir II for the Russian section and parts from the American, Canadian, European, and Japanese station designs for the American section. All the other projects were rolled into this one due to budgets. By the time ISS started in 1998, the Russians were not as well funded as they had been during the Cold War. The Americans were not funding NASA all that much since the end of the Cold War (since we didn't need the advances in missile technology, space planes, nor needed to beat anyone to anywhere anymore), and the other countries did not really have the full infrustructures to handle a full on space station. So put the pieces together over a long period of time and you get the ISS, which is almost complete. The Russians are still adding modules over the course of the next few years. The Dragon and Cygnus spacecraft should be fuctional and servicing the station of the Americans part of the deal this year with the first Dragon docking in February, a second by July and Cygnus by October.

Of course the Russian are said to be planning on detaching their half of the station when the rest of the world stops caring about the ISS and use it as the basis for a new Russian station as they think they can get 30 years out of the station where the Americans were planning of deorbiting it by 2015...which seems like even more of a waste to me. Spend lots of money and time to finish something, only to throw it away in four years? This isn't a car. Its a space station. A space station advertised as the first "permanent" manned station in orbit. It still should at least last until 2028 as fuctional. At least get the time spent on it.

Of course there are other space station projects in the works, or in orbit. Genesis I and II are in orbit (Bigelow Aerospace's private ventures), and the Chinese Tiangong station. There are also projects including Boeing's Node 4 idea to start construction of another station using the ISS as the construction point, then moving the new station to point L1. The Russians seem to have a similar idea for an orbital shipyard using its part of the ISS as a starting point.

Still a farcry from the Space Station V (operated largely by Hilton Hotels) in 2001.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 22:02   Link #2132
Vena
Carpe Diem
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ||At the edge of finality.||
Age: 25
Why does the core ever needs to be de-orbited aside from erosion/decay/damage to the hull, the rest should have little difference from how you upgrade a computer. That would save people a lot of time and money if they stopped tearing down every iteration and just built a solid, internally swappable core.
__________________
Transcend Eternity
Vena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 22:30   Link #2133
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Mainly because it will fall out of orbit naturally otherwise. Like Skylab did. They say they actually can't deorbit it poperly without Russian help because the Russians have experiance with that sort of operation (with their own stations). The options are: let it fall back to Earth in a random location. Deorbit it into the ocean. Keep boosting it up to orbit. Boost it up higher which delays its fall back to Earth, since there is no place in lower Earth orbit that won't eventually fall back to Earth. They would need a spacecraft with some power behind it to thrust it up more than the station's thrusters, which are mostly on the Russian side, or the Progress spacecraft presently. The old Space Tug idea from the 1970s comes to mind...the thing they were going to use with the Space Shuttles to rescue Skylab, but the Shuttle was delayed and the Space Tug never built. Skylab came down.

I wonder about the wear the insides are getting from crew and constant use of the life support systems. I can't say want systems will stop fuctioning on the basic structure and power systems of the station. But the segments should be able to be swapped out....if we had something that could do the operations....we don't. That was what the Shuttles were suppose to do. I suppose the multiple robotic arms could hold the other outer pieces in place while they slowly remove an older segment and then install a new one...but they would be cut off from the rest of the station as the designs is linear for the core segments.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 22:36   Link #2134
Vena
Carpe Diem
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ||At the edge of finality.||
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Mainly because it will fall out of orbit naturally otherwise. Like Skylab did. They say they actually can't deorbit it poperly without Russian help because the Russians have experiance with that sort of operation (with their own stations). The options are: let it fall back to Earth in a random location. Deorbit it into the ocean. Keep boosting it up to orbit. Boost it up higher which delays its fall back to Earth, since there is no place in lower Earth orbit that won't eventually fall back to Earth.
I know that it will naturally fall, I'm asking more as to why they don't just keep pushing it back out. Its far cheaper to keep boosting it back into orbit rather than letting it fall and then rebuilding it time and again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
I wonder about the wear the insides are getting from crew and constant use of the life support systems. I can't say want systems will stop fuctioning on the basic structure and power systems of the station. But the segments should be able to be swapped out....if we had something that could do the operations....we don't. That was what the Shuttles were suppose to do. I suppose the multiple robotic arms could hold the other outer pieces in place while they slowly remove an older segment and then install a new one...but they would be cut off from the rest of the station as the designs is linear for the core segments.
If you design it segment-compartmental then each chunk should be self-sufficient at least for brief moments of time, to allow for modification/seperation/upgrading without to much hassle, but would otherwise all work in tandem with the core's main systems. Like you said, the whole point of the space shuttle (which never happened) was for it to be able to facilitate these sorts of in-space operations, and if built properly could be used to safely remove chunks of unwanted segments as well as bring up new parts for already standing pieces.
__________________
Transcend Eternity
Vena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-26, 23:32   Link #2135
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Politically, it depends on what districts get which party elected, as different parties have different priorities.

Space Station Freedom was Reagan's proposed station idea from the 1980s. It would be under funded for a decade by Congress (Democractic controlled House, Republican controlled Senate for half that time, Democratic controlled Senate from 1987 to 1995). The station was redesigned several times, each time getting less and less useful, less and less science on it. By the Bush presidency, the idea was scaled back, but was still to be the first piece in an effort to go back to the Moon "to stay" and then beyond to Mars. What was left of it by 1993 and the Clinton Adminitration was called Station Alpha. This is what was eventually rolled up with Mir 2 and a few other projects to become the ISS. The American half of the staton is essentially the what the Clinton era Space Station Freedom would be, and it probably would have taken just as long to finish.

Aside from really Johnson (Kennedy's Vice President), most space projects seem to be pushed by Republican presidents...until cost comes into play. Mostly due to its use for national defense.

Democractic Presidents:
Kennedy was originally against the Apollo program but held of canning it due to Johnson (from Texas), and later the Soviet's first manned space flight changed his mind. Carter is not know for doing anything of note of the matter of Space. National defense being the only known. Both the Clinton and Obama administrations seem to take cutdown versions of previous administrations space projects and run them in some altered form. The Clinton Administration had started to move away from manned flights, but he station project required labor and people to live there. The Obama Administration seems to have reworked the Bush plan to something else, cutting out the Moon and aiming for something else. It has also shifted funding to the Private Sector rather than NASA. I don't know if these policies will hold if he remains President through 2016.

Republican Presidents:
Eisenhower was sort of a skeptic on the whole space thing, not only the space race but also the beauracracy needed to run it (he favored smaller government, not expanding it). Nixon pushed the Shuttle idea, but didn't really fund much else. Again likely for national defense. Ford wasn't President long enough to really make a policy.
Reagan and both Bushs seemed to want to push space for varous reasons. Reagan was going on for the Shuttles and a Station for them to build. He was going on for the SDI project ("Star Wars") and increased commercial satellites in orbit. He raised NASA's budget by a lot. George Bush continued Reagan's programs and increased their budget again, though the Augustine Report started a scale back need the end. George W. Bush, after Columbia was destroyed, attempted to fund a massive program to get the US back into space...but it would be cut...several times in several ways. It did also cut the Shuttle program to fund these new programs. I have little clue what the Republican challengers in 2012 will bring to the table. I've only heard from Newt that seems to be going back to the George W. Bush plan to land on the Moon and begin a base there by 2020 for future missions to Mars by the 2030s.


This does make me wonder how much of these scaled back projects that eventually go into orbit are due to to politics in Congress against the President rather than anything else. Or just a matter of "well that don't do anything for my district" mentality.

Edit: Of course if we had followed the Ride Report from 1987...we'd be out five hundred billion dollars, but have a Moon base already with the plan to have manned missions landed on Mars by now, or at least have them well underway. Also a better station (not much better, just more useful). Also would already have something other than the Space Shuttle in use, as having only one type of craft is bad...or at least not diverse enough to prevent failure and grounding like what happened when Challeger, and later Columbia, were destroyed.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!

Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-01-27 at 01:47.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-27, 06:00   Link #2136
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Romney puts Gingrich on defensive in Florida debate
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80P1UG20120127
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-27, 06:21   Link #2137
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
I think what really needs done is to get some permanent stations at one of the Lagrange points, most likely between earth and the moon. Maybe build a PLANT...
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-28, 01:10   Link #2138
Autumn Demon
~
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY
Age: 25
1996 Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole comes out against Newt Gingrich.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Dole
I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich, but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.

Gingrich served as speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. Already in 1997 a number of House members wanted to throw him out as speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when the writing was on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.

Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with Bill Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.

In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads, and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty ice-bucket in his hand -- that was a symbol of some sort for him -- and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it.

In my opinion if we want to avoid an Obama landslide in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president we could have confidence in.
Autumn Demon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-28, 01:24   Link #2139
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Bob Dole.. the last Republican I ever voted for.... <sigh>
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-28, 01:30   Link #2140
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Bob Dole.. the last Republican I ever voted for.... <sigh>
you voted for dole over slick willie?
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
2012 elections, us elections

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.